Barbara Flynn Currie.

20 May 2009

News from Springfield………………………………by State Rep. Barbara Flynn Currie

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel famously suggested that you shouldn’t let a crisis go to waste.

We have a crisis of confidence in Illinois state government, with one recent governor serving time in a federal prison and his successor facing criminal corruption charges.

We’ve been quick to seize the moment. The Illinois House and Senate created a Joint Committee on Government Reform (I’m a member), and the Governor appointed his own Reform Commission. Topics under consideration run the gamut, from government purchasing policies to the revolving door between public service and the private sector, from reform of the state’s five pension systems to greater openness in the state’s freedom of information laws.

Campaign finance reform is a particularly hot topic. Illinois is one of only a handful of states with no campaign contribution restrictions. It’s worth noting, however, that limits vary considerably, from $2,000 to more than $25,000. As well, some states limit contributions from some sources but not from others—-corporate and labor contributions may be capped, but not those from individuals or political action committees. Iowa, for example, bans corporate campaign contributions but puts no limit on contributions from individuals, political parties, labor unions and political action committees.

The most commonly proposed limit for Illinois is $2,400, which would track current federal restrictions. State Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno, R-Lemont, proposes a $10,000 cap. Personally I would be quite comfortable with the lower limit.

I do believe the legislature will--and should--rein in campaign contributions. But there are some gray areas. Self-funded candidates and outside advocacy organizations are flies in the campaign finance ointment. The Supreme Court has said we can’t limit contributions from a candidate to his or her own campaign as there’s nothing potentially corrupting in that transaction. Self-funded candidates, of course, don’t always carry the day—just ask perennial and unsuccessful candidate James Oberweis. Blair Hull, on the other hand, looked a likely winner in the United States Senate primary in 2004 until last-minute reports of domestic violence tripped him up.

Outside advocacy groups are more troubling. You’ll remember the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, whose ads may have cost John Kerry the presidency. The Supreme Court has held that contributions from advocacy groups can’t be limited as long as they neither coordinate with a candidate’s campaign nor name the candidate of their choice. One might think that advocacy groups cancel each other out. They don’t. The insurance industry is in a lot better position to finance an issue campaign than are the ordinary people who support consumer rights.

The Court should reconsider this issue. If direct contributions to a candidate campaign can be limited, contributions that indirectly support that candidate should be subject to limits as well.

While we wait for the Court to reverse course, I’m prepared to risk the occasional millionaire or well-funded advocacy organization on the campaign trail. The perception that unlimited campaign spending corrupts the system is a perception that itself undermines trust in government. I’m prepared to vote to limit campaign contributions—and I’d be up for a strong dose of public financing as well.

########################